Open unit of work

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the locking side effect, the creation of a working copy, and the crucial transactional rule that no pool write tool auto-saves. It also warns which sibling is blocked while the unit is open, which the annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three clauses, each earning its place: the action and side effects first, then the transactional rule, then the blocked tool. Front-loaded and free of filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers preconditions, side effects, and the blocked sibling. The minor gap is that it does not name rillsoft_resource_pool_edit_save / rillsoft_resource_pool_edit_close, leaving the agent to infer how the unit is persisted and released.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single discardChanges parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning ('true = discard a unit of work that is already open, together with its unsaved changes'). The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('opens a unit of work on the resource pool') and immediately explains the concrete effect: it locks the pool and creates a working copy. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like rillsoft_resource_pool_edit_close, rillsoft_resource_pool_edit_save, and rillsoft_resource_pool_file_select without the agent needing to open any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a strong precondition: every writing pool tool is valid only inside an open unit of work, and none of them saves on its own. It also names a blocked alternative (rillsoft_resource_pool_file_select). What it does not state explicitly is the pairing with rillsoft_resource_pool_edit_save / edit_close, so the agent must infer the save-then-close sequence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.